Trek 11's ship IS the Enterprise

[Tom Servo]

I may be mistaken, but I believe curves in this context are actually structurally weaker, or at least more prone to sagging.

This is space - no sagging.

Wrong.

"Sagging" isn't caused by gravity, "sagging" is caused by application of forces, and the inability to resist those forces.

Straight beams are stronger, in bending, in tension, in compression, than curved beams. Always. Without exception.

uniform circular shells, on the other hand, are always stronger than other shapes.

The ideal form for a structural element is straight, hollow round tube. Which is why it's used so often in real life.

The ideal shape for an unloaded stand-alone element is a sphere. But a sphere isn't effective in resisting tension or compression due to applied external loads.

Putting unnecessary notches into structural elements (say, nacelle housings, or dorsals) weakens the structure to a significant degree without adding any mechanical benefit whatsoever. Putting curvature into a pylon, similarly, results in a more massive pylon which is also weaker overall.

Regardless of "space" or "planetside" application.

And, if the nacelle-pylons on the old Enterprise (which were - or at least looked - much weaker) wouldn't snap off of or get torn off during accelleration, then the new ship's pylons (which are much more robust looking) will be fine.

Except that your comment about them being "more robust-looking" isn't really accurate (though I'm sure it's an accurate description of how you're perceiving it, not saying otherwise), this isn't a bad argument.

The fact is, the original mounting structure wasn't as robust as I'd have made it if I were designing a REAL structure. But this new structure is (your visual perceptions to the contrary) a WEAKER structure than that of the original ship's engine-mounting structure. And it's SIGNIFICANTLY weaker.

That said... none of this is real, is it? It's all art. And that's the SOLE reason that the "new" ship looks like it does. Not for any practical reason, and not because the original design is "dated" in any way. No... it's how it is simply because someone on the new film's production staff thought that this change would make it look more "kewl."

Cary, you do the "kewl" crap all the time, its getting annoying. If you want to criticize the design fine, but it seems you cannot do it without becoming condescending to those who do like it. I don't like it because it's "kewl", I like it because it's a nice design, with some graceful lines. You can make your point without resorting to the "kewl" crap to make it seem like this ship is liked only by those dumber then you.

The reason the ship was redesigned was because this is Abram's Trek, not TOS, and the creative people on this project wanted to do some things their way, which is perfectly fine. What sort of designer would want to work on a project that has the designs already set in stone? They took the basic design and tweaked it with their own style, and the result is pretty nice.

 

[number6]

^Well said. Every team that has gotten to do Trek since 1979 have been able to put their own stamp on it. Why shouldn't that apply to the Abrams team as well?

 

[QuasarVM]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

 

[number6]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

So while a few of the people here think that minutae like this will sink this film, most people won't care.

 

[3D Master]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

Then they're blinder than bats.

 

[number6]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

Then they're blinder than bats.

No. They DON'T CARE!

It's not important. What is important is that the film is entertaining.

 

[ST-One]

I may be mistaken, but I believe curves in this context are actually structurally weaker, or at least more prone to sagging.

This is space - no sagging.

Wrong.

"Sagging" isn't caused by gravity, "sagging" is caused by application of forces, and the inability to resist those forces.

Straight beams are stronger, in bending, in tension, in compression, than curved beams. Always. Without exception.

uniform circular shells, on the other hand, are always stronger than other shapes.

The ideal form for a structural element is straight, hollow round tube. Which is why it's used so often in real life.

The ideal shape for an unloaded stand-alone element is a sphere. But a sphere isn't effective in resisting tension or compression due to applied external loads.

Putting unnecessary notches into structural elements (say, nacelle housings, or dorsals) weakens the structure to a significant degree without adding any mechanical benefit whatsoever. Putting curvature into a pylon, similarly, results in a more massive pylon which is also weaker overall.

Regardless of "space" or "planetside" application.

And, if the nacelle-pylons on the old Enterprise (which were - or at least looked - much weaker) wouldn't snap off of or get torn off during accelleration, then the new ship's pylons (which are much more robust looking) will be fine.

Except that your comment about them being "more robust-looking" isn't really accurate (though I'm sure it's an accurate description of how you're perceiving it, not saying otherwise), this isn't a bad argument.

The fact is, the original mounting structure wasn't as robust as I'd have made it if I were designing a REAL structure. But this new structure is (your visual perceptions to the contrary) a WEAKER structure than that of the original ship's engine-mounting structure. And it's SIGNIFICANTLY weaker.

That said... none of this is real, is it? It's all art. And that's the SOLE reason that the "new" ship looks like it does. Not for any practical reason, and not because the original design is "dated" in any way. No... it's how it is simply because someone on the new film's production staff thought that this change would make it look more "kewl."

Yeah, I'm sure there were heated scientific debates about the 'correct' blinking-pattern of the nacelles forward illumination.
I'm mean, there is no way the TOS design team just put those lights there to look interesting. Right?

The TOS-Enterprise was as 'kewl' looking in the 60s as the new Enterprise does today.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If you want to criticize the design fine, but it seems you cannot do it without becoming condescending to those who do like it.

So nu?

The reason the ship was redesigned was because this is Abram's Trek, not TOS, and the creative people on this project wanted to do some things their way, which is perfectly fine. What sort of designer would want to work on a project that has the designs already set in stone? They took the basic design and tweaked it with their own style, and the result is pretty nice.

Exactly so.

People can like or dislike the design all they want - it's entirely a personal aesthetic judgment. Lengthy diatribes in "support" of one position or another are meaningless wastes of time.

My response to just about every major design aspect of this movie (except the uniforms) is the same: I'd have liked it better if it looked more like TOS, but I never expected that to happen and what they've done looks damned good and is often pretty cool. I like Church's version of the Enterprise better than several that have been used, and so far I love the way it looks onscreen in the actual movie.

I'm going to start spelling that "kewl," BTW.

Yeah, I'm sure there were heated scientific debates about the 'correct' blinking-pattern of the nacelles forward illumination.
I'm mean, there is no way the TOS design team just put those lights there to look interesting. Right?

As much as Jefferies liked to work out the functionality of overall designs, the final word was Roddenberry's and he was very much of the "I don't know engineering but I know if I'm buying this" school of thought. Most of the details of the ship were the result of trial-and-error and were under continual revision through construction and early use. The "spinning lights" were a late innovation and done entirely for the sake of appearence. When Jefferies was asked to revise the ship for Star Trek Phase II he entirely abandoned the original nacelle design for no reason other than to create a visual difference between the original ship and the putative upgrade.

I like the nacelles on the JJPrise because I liked the cylindrical nacelles on the TOS ship better than the Phase II/TMP version. Church's nacelles also fit into the overall lineage of most engines we've seen in Trek for the last forty years better than the TMP versions do. Very kewl.

 

[number6]

Yeah, I'm sure there were heated scientific debates about the 'correct' blinking-pattern of the nacelles forward illumination.
I'm mean, there is no way the TOS design team just put those lights there to look interesting. Right?

The TOS-Enterprise was as 'kewl' looking in the 60s as the new Enterprise does today.

They talked to NASA. Especially about the green blinking light on the starboard side. A team of engineers debated that for several months. That's why the SFX were always behind schedule.


ETA: This is how the rest of the world views the word "kewl"

I couldn't agreee more.

 

[QuasarVM]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

So while a few of the people here think that minutae like this will sink this film, most people won't care.

No, it's MY decision as it's MY perception. My perception and my reality is it's ugly.

I'll still see the film though. One has nothing to do with the other.

You might be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of person but I'm not.

I am sure this film will have things I love and things I hate...like this new ship. But...I am still cautiously optimistic about the film overall.

As for all the dweebs who can't tell the difference between ships....

All I can say is that wouldn't surprise me given the attention spans of a lot of people these days...;-)

You'd have to have the attention span of a gnat to not see the difference.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, it's MY decision as it's MY perception. My perception and my reality is it's ugly.

We get to have our own perceptions and our own opinions. We don't get to have "our reality," however. That way lies madness, as I've had to be reminded more than once in my life.

ETA: This is how the rest of the world views the word "kewl"

In other words, differently from one another and with considerable humor. Kewl.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary, you do the "kewl" crap all the time, its getting annoying.

I say it for a purpose. If you don't like that purpose, well, that's your problem, not mine.

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

Change for no purpose but to make a change, to me, is useless. Change which serves no purpose but to make a change... AND which will irritate some people... is worse than useless.

Change made "just because I can," which provides no benefit, and which does some degree of harm, shows a real lack of thought.

That's what I describe as "kewl." My use of this term (despite the fact that you, following on after Dennis' attempt to mock my use of the term a few days back, it seems, don't appreciate it) is a DIFFERENT TERM, with DIFFERENT MEANING, than "cool."

This term is used to describe things which I don't deserve respect, and the use of the term is in this context is intended to illustrate that lack of respect for that mindset of "changing just be be kewl."

It's a totally different term, with a different meaning, than "cool."

"Cool" is a POSITIVE TERM.

"Kewl" is a NEGATIVE TERM.

If I wanted to use a positive term, I would. I don't.

If that bothers you, or Dennis, or Six... or any of your little clique... that's your problem.

If you want to criticize the design fine, but it seems you cannot do it without becoming condescending to those who do like it. I don't like it because it's "kewl", I like it because it's a nice design, with some graceful lines. You can make your point without resorting to the "kewl" crap to make it seem like this ship is liked only by those dumber then you.

Sorry, that's bullshit.

Unless you, personally, are the guy who made those design changes, I was in no fashion whatsoever talking about you. In fact, in my post (the one to which you're referring... you may remember that one?) I was pretty clear about ARTISTIC STYLE being a matter of taste. If you, personally, are associating your own sense of self-worth with any criticism of this ship design... and if you're not actually Ryan Church... then you might want to take a step back.

Ryan Church would have a right to be offended by my comment. J.J. Abrams would have a right. Several other folks on the production crew would have that right. And I wouldn't mind, because it's THEM I'm talking about, and it's them I'm describing as having made choices for what I think are very poor reasons (mostly about egotism, in other words).

You, as a CONSUMER of their work, are welcome to like it or not. I, as a CONSUMER of their work, am welcome to like it or not. I, as a consumer of their work, am welcome to CRITICIZE their work.

You, as a CONSUMER of their work, are not really able to (and shouldn't even think in terms of) take offense if someone criticizes their work.

I'm not sure why you seem to be doing so.

The reason the ship was redesigned was because this is Abram's Trek, not TOS, and the creative people on this project wanted to do some things their way, which is perfectly fine.

That's the core of this argument. To you, it's "perfectly fine."

To many others, it's not.

You, by saying this sort of thing (along with the various other "canonista" comments you and some others on here have made over time) frequently mock those who don't agree with you.

And yet, I wasn't even THINKING of you when I made my own comment which seems to have offended you. And you feel perfectly justified in telling me to shut up because it, nevertheless, seems to have hurt your feelings. And you didn't design the ship... did you?

I don't like the new design. I believe that most of the changes were not done for any other reason but "I want to do something different because I want to show that it's MINE! MINE MINE MINE!"

It isn't more artistically sound. It isn't more technologically sound. It isn't more attractive. (And there are many arguments, especially regarding interior set design, which make it clear that it's far less practical of a design).

It's different just to be different. That would be fine if this wasn't "Star Trek." Or if it was a different ship. But it's supposed to be "the same ship," isn't it?

If James Cameron had decided to "fix" the design of the Titanic, to "make it his own," it would have had two real effects.

First, it would have led to the film being inaccurate to reality. That issue is not an issue here, of course... and I mention it only to prevent anyone from (once again) pulling up that particular straw-man argument to pretend that the perspective of those they're disagreeing with is "we can't tell reality from fantasy."

So, second... it would have had the effect of pulling some members of the audience out of their ability to pretend that they were watching something real. There's a template...and the audience is, to one extent or another, familiar with that template.

Sure... set "Titanic" on the QE-2, and better than half the audience wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But for those who would be able to tell... it would be a deal-breaker. It would be a constant reminder that "this is wrong."

What sort of designer would want to work on a project that has the designs already set in stone? They took the basic design and tweaked it with their own style, and the result is pretty nice.

Hmmm....

Who was the production designer for "Valkyrie?" I wonder... did anyone want that job?

Oddly, the designs for the (now-nonexistent) buildings and environments... and the designs for the clothing and so forth... all had designs which were "set in stone."

Maybe that person... whoever took the job... should have insisted that they get to redesign the National Socialist People's Army of Germany (aka the Nazi Army) uniforms? Or insisted on getting to redesign the cars? Or the major governmental buildings?

This is a JOB for these people, and it's just a different set of challenges, replicating something (in a movie-quality manner) which already exists. It may be "more fun" to get to redesign everything from the ground up, true.

But if these guys are getting paid for it, I have no problem with expecting them to do their best to do the job that the film requires them to do, not just to "play" and "have fun."

If they think it's more important to "have fun" and "make our marks" and "take ownership" and so forth, without any compelling filmmaking argument behind what they're doing... and if they, in the process, drive that "waitaminute, why is this all wrong?" set of thoughts into the minds of some portion of the audience...

Then, in that case, they've done it to be "kewl" and they deserve no respect for doing so.

 

[QuasarVM]

No, it's MY decision as it's MY perception. My perception and my reality is it's ugly.

We get to have our own perceptions and our own opinions. We don't get to have "our reality," however. That way lies madness, as I've had to be reminded more than once in my life.

You too, huh?

Well, what I am trying to say is -- the design doesn't work for *me*.

That's all...

 

[number6]

Because their stamp (at least with regard to the Enterprise) is ugly.

That's not your decision to make. It's theirs. You can see the film or not see it.

I don't think non fans will care about it either way. I showed a picture of the new E to a couple of friends (all were sci-fi fans and a few were even Star Trek fans) and the common reaction has always been: "It's the SAME SHIP! What the fuck are they complaining about??"

So while a few of the people here think that minutae like this will sink this film, most people won't care.

No, it's MY decision as it's MY perception. My perception and my reality is it's ugly.

I'll still see the film though. One has nothing to do with the other.

You might be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of person but I'm not.

I am sure this film will have things I love and things I hate...like this new ship. But...I am still cautiously optimistic about the film overall.

As for all the dweebs who can't tell the difference between ships....

All I can say is that wouldn't surprise me given the attention spans of a lot of people these days...;-)

First of all..categorizing me as a "throw the baby out with the bathwater kind of person" is simply unfair. I am pointing out that most people don't care about this minutae as a matter of relevant fact, nothing more.

I would have loved to have seen the 1965 version of the mighty E on the big screen just as much as you. I would have loved to see that original Cage bridge too. It's not going to happen. Now I could go see the film and judge it on its own merits or I can stamp my feet and cry like a three year old until I get my way. Abrams and Co. have finished their film. It's done. They're not going to go back and change it because YOU don't like the ship. Sorry. Not. Going. To. Happen.

My feeling is that I may as well see this film and judge it as its own thing. That's MY decision. It's not up to you or anyone else here to decide for me.

Second of all...The percentage of people who are going to care about all this whining and posturing is pretty small in the relative scheme of things. Sure when Spiderman came out there were some comic book guys who were upset about what was changd from the original comic. That film was successful enough with the general public to make two sequels with another being considered. There are those who felt the same about Batman and Bond, too. Ultimately it didn't matter. Those movies attracted a new generation of fans, too. That's what this film is about.

Third of all... If this film really tanks, it won't be because of the design of the ship.

These are realities. And the shrill voice of a few vocal purists isn't going to change that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You too, huh?

I've been called on it, yeah.

 

[Irishman]

Cary, you do the "kewl" crap all the time, its getting annoying.

I say it for a purpose. If you don't like that purpose, well, that's your problem, not mine.

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

Change for no purpose but to make a change, to me, is useless. Change which serves no purpose but to make a change... AND which will irritate some people... is worse than useless.

Change made "just because I can," which provides no benefit, and which does some degree of harm, shows a real lack of thought.

That's what I describe as "kewl." My use of this term (despite the fact that you, following on after Dennis' attempt to mock my use of the term a few days back, it seems, don't appreciate it) is a DIFFERENT TERM, with DIFFERENT MEANING, than "cool."

This term is used to describe things which I don't deserve respect, and the use of the term is in this context is intended to illustrate that lack of respect for that mindset of "changing just be be kewl."

It's a totally different term, with a different meaning, than "cool."

"Cool" is a POSITIVE TERM.

"Kewl" is a NEGATIVE TERM.

If I wanted to use a positive term, I would. I don't.

If that bothers you, or Dennis, or Six... or any of your little clique... that's your problem.

If you want to criticize the design fine, but it seems you cannot do it without becoming condescending to those who do like it. I don't like it because it's "kewl", I like it because it's a nice design, with some graceful lines. You can make your point without resorting to the "kewl" crap to make it seem like this ship is liked only by those dumber then you.

Sorry, that's bullshit.

Unless you, personally, are the guy who made those design changes, I was in no fashion whatsoever talking about you. In fact, in my post (the one to which you're referring... you may remember that one?) I was pretty clear about ARTISTIC STYLE being a matter of taste. If you, personally, are associating your own sense of self-worth with any criticism of this ship design... and if you're not actually Ryan Church... then you might want to take a step back.

Ryan Church would have a right to be offended by my comment. J.J. Abrams would have a right. Several other folks on the production crew would have that right. And I wouldn't mind, because it's THEM I'm talking about, and it's them I'm describing as having made choices for what I think are very poor reasons (mostly about egotism, in other words).

You, as a CONSUMER of their work, are welcome to like it or not. I, as a CONSUMER of their work, am welcome to like it or not. I, as a consumer of their work, am welcome to CRITICIZE their work.

You, as a CONSUMER of their work, are not really able to (and shouldn't even think in terms of) take offense if someone criticizes their work.

I'm not sure why you seem to be doing so.

The reason the ship was redesigned was because this is Abram's Trek, not TOS, and the creative people on this project wanted to do some things their way, which is perfectly fine.

That's the core of this argument. To you, it's "perfectly fine."

To many others, it's not.

You, by saying this sort of thing (along with the various other "canonista" comments you and some others on here have made over time) frequently mock those who don't agree with you.

And yet, I wasn't even THINKING of you when I made my own comment which seems to have offended you. And you feel perfectly justified in telling me to shut up because it, nevertheless, seems to have hurt your feelings. And you didn't design the ship... did you?

I don't like the new design. I believe that most of the changes were not done for any other reason but "I want to do something different because I want to show that it's MINE! MINE MINE MINE!"

It isn't more artistically sound. It isn't more technologically sound. It isn't more attractive. (And there are many arguments, especially regarding interior set design, which make it clear that it's far less practical of a design).

It's different just to be different. That would be fine if this wasn't "Star Trek." Or if it was a different ship. But it's supposed to be "the same ship," isn't it?

If James Cameron had decided to "fix" the design of the Titanic, to "make it his own," it would have had two real effects.

First, it would have led to the film being inaccurate to reality. That issue is not an issue here, of course... and I mention it only to prevent anyone from (once again) pulling up that particular straw-man argument to pretend that the perspective of those they're disagreeing with is "we can't tell reality from fantasy."

So, second... it would have had the effect of pulling some members of the audience out of their ability to pretend that they were watching something real. There's a template...and the audience is, to one extent or another, familiar with that template.

Sure... set "Titanic" on the QE-2, and better than half the audience wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But for those who would be able to tell... it would be a deal-breaker. It would be a constant reminder that "this is wrong."

What sort of designer would want to work on a project that has the designs already set in stone? They took the basic design and tweaked it with their own style, and the result is pretty nice.

Hmmm....

Who was the production designer for "Valkyrie?" I wonder... did anyone want that job?

Oddly, the designs for the (now-nonexistent) buildings and environments... and the designs for the clothing and so forth... all had designs which were "set in stone."

Maybe that person... whoever took the job... should have insisted that they get to redesign the National Socialist People's Army of Germany (aka the Nazi Army) uniforms? Or insisted on getting to redesign the cars? Or the major governmental buildings?

This is a JOB for these people, and it's just a different set of challenges, replicating something (in a movie-quality manner) which already exists. It may be "more fun" to get to redesign everything from the ground up, true.

But if these guys are getting paid for it, I have no problem with expecting them to do their best to do the job that the film requires them to do, not just to "play" and "have fun."

If they think it's more important to "have fun" and "make our marks" and "take ownership" and so forth, without any compelling filmmaking argument behind what they're doing... and if they, in the process, drive that "waitaminute, why is this all wrong?" set of thoughts into the minds of some portion of the audience...

Then, in that case, they've done it to be "kewl" and they deserve no respect for doing so.

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Dude, relax. It's all kewl.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If they think it's more important to "have fun" and "make our marks" and "take ownership" and so forth, without any compelling filmmaking argument behind what they're doing... and if they, in the process, drive that "waitaminute, why is this all wrong?" set of thoughts into the minds of some portion of the audience...

Then, in that case, they've done it to be "kewl" and they deserve no respect for doing so.

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Okay, is this a "reading comprehension" issue on your part or are you being deliberate about this?

"Kewl" IS derogatory. I meant it to be derogatory. Towards this design. And yes, towards the folks responsible for this design.

As I've said several times already (and which you should have no trouble grasping), as far as I'm aware, nobody in this forum is responsible for this design.

Ryan, are you in here?

J.J? Wanna chime in?

Anybody?

No?

Then the word has not been "aimed at anyone in this forum," has it?

 

[number6]

"Kewl" is derogatory, and when aimed at persons on this forum, is unnecessary sniping.

Yup.

And Cary knows exactly what he's doing when he uses it. He's definitely not fooling anyone, no matter how many paragraphs he uses to "explain" himself.


Oh.. and welcome to our clique!! We have membership forms for you to sign so you can get your free toaster oven!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

"Kewl" is a term which characterizes the attitude behind, in this case, a change. It's a change not being made for any compelling reason. It's not "better art" nor is it "technically more reasonable."

No, it's just cool, which is a compelling reason.